User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Contents

September 2010

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Fourviz's talk page.
Message added 17:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:List of Wizards of Waverly Place characters

The reason why I put the this image File:Wowp poster.png on the character page is because it shows the three main characters. Down in the page it shows the three other main characters in the series with their own images in their infobox. But whatever, it's not like I uploaded the images anyway, Do what you must. QuasyBoy 17:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: H2O

Sorry for not getting back to you for a while...I've not been very active on Wiki as of late. Okay, I probably shouldn't be pushing my preferred style of listing actors, but I totally disregard any WikiProject that tries to force a particular format. Common sense should prevail in this instance...in no way does Luke Mitchell qualify as a main, yet Brittany Byrnes does not. Mitchell no more qualifies than Burgess Abernethy does. If you disagree, then by all means restore that edit. I'm just getting tired of Wikipedia's trend toward rules for rules' sake. That's just me, though; I believe WP:Ignore All Rules exists to favour common sense and logical process. Huntster (t @ c) 05:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Actors

If you think I don't know "Actor" is a neutral term used for both sexes, you're mistaken. I changed it to "Actress" because as I search through different actor/actress pages on Wikipedia, I'm noticing that females are now being referred to more commonly as actresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disney09 (talkcontribs) 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason that female actors are being referred to as "actresses" is because most editors mistakenly think that because "actress" specifically refers to a female, "actor" must refer to a male. Most never bother to check. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Meco. Thank you. —Terrillja talk 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Warring?

Give it a rest, eh. We have the same experience level.
You should cit. req. it since you know it is not even remotely wrong.

Yes, your point, that teenagers should not know anything about literature, is absolutely unassailable.
You're happy now? You are the victor. Victory to you. Chalk up one in the column of teen ignorance.
That is what encyclopedias are about. Ignorance.
Amen. Varlaam (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

One would assume we should have the same experience level but I understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, while you do not seem aware of the requirements of these policies. As I indicated on your talk page, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A claim such as the one you made requires a source and WP:V provides that "anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". There is no mandated requirement to request a citation and this is completely unnecessary when the claim is obviously original research. For the record, I do not "know it is not even remotely wrong". There is nothing to even suggest that it is a valid claim. In any case, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
Normally I wouldn't give a regular a templated 3RR warning but the fact is, you made no attempt to discuss the matter or even to provide a citation; you just reverted my removal of your uncited claim,[1] even before I had finished my comments on your talk page.[2] I had already indicated, twice, that your claim was OR,[3][4] so at that point you should have attempted to discuss the matter, as per WP:BRD, or provided a citation to support your claim, neither of which you did. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton

I don't understand this edit summary. Why did you remove the link? There is no link in the sentence to List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Recurrent characters. However whatever (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the edit summary, rather than a link to the whole recurrent characters section, there's a direct link to Wil Wheaton's entry in the section. Did you try clicking on his name? It's facilitated by the anchor I added in this edit and the piping I added here. -AussieLegend (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. However whatever (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

recent edit

I saw you replied to a response at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 2) in thhe section I/M Mad. I did want to say it looks like she might be a sock of user CNGLITCHINFO. I will look it to this some more. She had the same type or typing and language as her other accountsSaylaveer (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

H2O edit

Regarding this, how did that screw up the title? Looked fine for me (simple italicising), and was done per WP:ITALICTITLE. Huntster (t @ c) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is damned peculiar. Prior to your edit the title was H2O but after it was H2O on the PC I was using. I'm on another PC now and it looked fine when I read your message so I checked the original PC and it was still H2O. After a reboot, all is now fine. Must be a Firefox thing. I'll revert my edit. Sorry. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That's weird. I'm on FF 3.6.10 myself. So the problem was only in FF, but went away on that comp after the restart? Perhaps it was just a corrupt process. Hmmmmmm, indeed. Huntster (t @ c) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Category

As you had perviously commented on this categorizational scheme on the categorization talkpage, you may be interested in the discussion here.--Terrillja talk 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gift of the Woodi

Hi AussieLegend, I noticed you are a regular contributor to the Cheers article. I am hoping that you will be sympathetic to my cause. I created the The Gift of the Woodi article years ago to cover the Cheers episode in which Woody sings the K-E-L-L-Y song. People who apparently know nothing about Cheers are threatening to delete this article. Please take a look at the article and judge for yourself. Clerks. (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't warn me when I do something wrong

Just a civil request, please don't warn me for doing things you've just done to me. For instance, if I undo 2 of your edits and you undo 2 of mine, don't come to me acuse me of edit warring. It comes off as trying to instigate a fight. Thanks. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your addition and removal of categories, and blanking of pages, has been reverted by multiple editors and you've been warned on your talk page. That isn't flaming. However, continually doing what you are doing is edit-warring and is likely to get you blocked if you continue. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
My edits are in good faith, quit edit warring me plz. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Good faith would be waiting for the discussion to be completed before bulldozing your changes into the articles. What you are doing is edit-warring and is not appropriate. Discuss the matter at Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and then, if consensus to change the cats is reached, then they should be changed, not before. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
DUDE! Please stop talking about ME in talk pages. Discuss the issue. Do I need to find the warning template? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
DUDE! I don't know what you're talking about. I have only spoken to you, not about you, apart from vague mention of a disruptive IP at WP:RFPPNB. Warning me would be highly inappropriate since you are clearly the editor being disruptive. As I have previously indicated, you need to stop editing and discuss this. The burden is on you to justify the changes, and you should be doing this at the article talk page, instead of harassing me here. If you would follow WP:BRD and stop ignoring those who've reverted your changes, there would be no need to warn you constantly. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sydney Montage

Hey Aussie, I'm a little new here, so I'm not all that sure about how to get a consensus, as with the Sydney montage. I don't want to get into an edit war, but rather to discuss this in a civilized manner here. Thanks.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverts without discussion

Hiya, again you've reverted my edit with no discussion on your revert or the topic. You've made comments about my conduct but would you please address the actual issue on the talk page of the edits you are reverting. And please again, no personal attacks. Stick to the topic. Thanks. 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but given edits such as this and this, and your persistent personal attacks, I'm not convinced that you genuinely want to discuss this. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm asking for you to clarify your stance on the article not myself. Can you help? 69.246.27.226 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

iCarly split

I'd like your opinion on the proposed split of List of iCarly characters into main character pages. Thanks. --Confession0791 talk 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Template: Child Characters

Look Ive added on to it and there really is no reason to remove it. It is fair and fine and I Will put in my input to the discussion.--Gertie1999 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Gertie1999

episode split

can we have your opion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Splitting thanksSaylaveer (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Cast list

Sorry about my edit that you fixed, I guess I had assumed that Peter Cambor had been removed from the regular lineup. However, for AJ Craig, since he is no longer in the credits, I would think it makes most sense to move him to the end of the list, with the current stars at front. Did I miss a (one of the endless number of) guideline? Huntster (t @ c) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The convention is to leave cast members in the order credited, which is consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Cast information's requirement that "articles should reflect the entire history of a series". Craig was never credited at the end. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DVD Covers again being uploaded

User Rizzoli Isles (formerly Langston Bonasera) perhaps thought nobody was watching, but I suspected he would start up again. Can you suggest how to handle this? The latest image is a Law & Order: Criminal Intent cover image. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I found inappropriate edits to File:Law & Order - Criminal Intent - Season 9 Cast.jpg, which I've now fixed. I've also left a warning on Rizzoli's talk page,[5]. You might care to check Rizzoli's edits, particularly to Template:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, where he's made some substantial changes.[6] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Hannah Montana main characters

I have reverted your restoration of an image to this list. It is not necessary nor supported by WP:NFC and WP:NFCC to add images for every character. A cast photo is sufficient, as explained at WP:NFLISTS. Please do not restore this image again, as it violates policy and guideline. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS prescribes that multiple non-free images can not be used in articles. They state that a single image is preferred, but preferred does not mean only one. The cast photo in the article identifies the cast in their primary roles, but does not identify the significant, alternative roles of Lola Luftnagle or Mike Standley III. The image that I restored is used to identify Lola Luftnage and this is an appropriate use under NFLISTS#5, because the appearance of Lola Luftnagle is significantly different to either Emily Osment or Osment in her prime role as Lilly Truscott. It is also appropriate under WP:NFCC#8 because its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the character. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Then where is the cited discussion indicating that this appearance is somehow significant? WP:NFLISTS is not an enabler to include more free content if a cast photo does not display every character and every iteration of that character. If there is something significant about the particular appearance of the character, and that appearance is not in the cast photo, then I can see it. As is, it's just decoration due to the fact that this character is not in the cast photo. That fails WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion indicating the significance is right where the image is located. Perhaps you should read the article. I don't have an issue with the other images that you removed. It was quite appropriate to do so, but this image is used because it demonstrates the difference between the character Osment normally portrays and that character's disguised alter ego, and that difference is not adequately describable with prose. It's use is not purely decorative as you claim. The image used is not necessarily the best option for an image there, some of the costumes worn are quite flamboyant, but it is sufficient, it's all we have for now and it has served for over 2 1/2 years. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I did read it, but thank you for the accusation anyway. The only cited discussion pertains to a white wig. We need an image to enhance the reader's understanding that she's worn a white wig? See WP:NFCC #1. We can (and have) adequately conveyed that she's worn a white wig. We don't need an image to prove that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's "purple and white wigs" but that isn't the only content in that section, and there are 317 words in that section that describe other aspects of the differences between Lilly and Lola. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • With one cite. Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states (in the second paragraph) "in practice not everything need actually be attributed." What is required is that everything be verifiable, and the content in that section is verifiable. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you again for an accusation. Truly appreciated. Look, you're making an argument that this image must be in that section because the reader would suffer a detrimental effect to their understanding by not having the image there. That's the requirement placed upon us by WP:NFCC. It can not lightly be ignored. The one single citation that entire section has is to a video, that spends less than 30 seconds discussing wigs. Nothing else in that section is supported by the cite. There's a claim that an off stage comment was made, uncited. There's a claim that there's 80+ wigs, also unsupported by a cite. There's a claim that Osment thinks she's more like Lola than Lilly, also uncited. And on it goes. And this image is crucial to understand these things how? Answer; it's not. The image has already been replaced in its purpose by the text of section, in noting that she wears white wigs. There's no point to this non-free image being here. It's purely decorative. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that you're still harping on the wig, it seems my suggestion was valid. As I've already indicated, WP:V says that everything has to be verifiable, but not necessarily cited. Almost everything in that section is verifiable, so it's valid, not just the bit about the wig. The only bit I couldn't confirm was the backstage interview comment, so I've tagged it. The claim about 80 wigs is in the video at 54 seconds, so it is cited, contrary to your claim. The important part is the description of the costuming, and the image is used to support that. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Yes - take your point. Its quite the most ridiculous correspondence I've entered into on WP. CheersNickm57 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stick around and you'll see worse. :( -AussieLegend (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Beer

Why did you roll back my attempts to fix horribly broken world beer consumption page, which according to you has Australia in 45th place??

Australia is solidly in 4th.

Reference claiming otherwise is ALCOHOL consumption, e.g., all alcohol normalized to pure, 100%

Taking an initially internally consistent study (Kirin), and randomly changing/updating entries based on supposed "sources" (which use different metrics than Kirin) is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.156.229 (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Australia was "solidly in 4th" in 2004, six years ago. The citation currently in the article, which is only five months old, is not about "all alcohol normalized to pure", it's about beer, which is hinted at by the title "Beer drinking in Australia at 60-year low". --AussieLegend (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/foo_bee_con-food-beer-consumption

That site begs the differ mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceskazbrojovka (talkcontribs) 10:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is a far more authoritative and credible source for Australian statistics than any other source you can provide. Gathering statistics about Australia is all they do. Nationmaster cites as some of its sources, OECD Health Data 2005 (not very current compared to the 2009 ABS data) and Wikipedia (a circular reference). By the way, you posted this in the wrong section. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The IT Crowd

I have noticed you revert my change to the image size, as per WP:IMGSIZE its not a good idea to force a image size without a reason. Is there any reason why the image size should be set to 250px? -- d'oh! [talk] 07:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere, I haven't got time to look for it now, there's a policy that says the lead image should not be less than 300px. In infoboxes this is often ignored, as it makes the infobox too wide. As a general rule of thumb, landscape images should be wide enough to fill the infobox. Images in the body of the article should comply with WP:IMGSIZE. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px"" - MOS:IMAGES, and the WP:IMGSIZE policy applies to all images no matter where they are located. Unless you can provide a reason why the image should be at that size as per WP:IMGSIZE I will be adding back the "frameless". -- d'oh! [talk] 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently it was changed sometime, as the wording used to be "It is recommended that lead images be no smaller than 300px".[7] Not forcing an image size in the body of an article makes sense as it allows readers to set their own preferences for image widths. Infoboxes are a different matter. Because they have a minimum width ({{Infobox television}} is about 247px) there is nothing to be gained from making the image any narrower than the minimum width because the infobox will be at least that size regardless of the user's image preferences. It just makes the image look ridiculously small. On the other hand, forcing the image size prevents the infobox from unnecessarily growing to a width it doesn't need to be, possibly squeezing text in the lede. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) recommends that infoboxes be 300px wide and some infoboxes set default values for image widths of 250, 270 or some other value. As I said, the general rule of thumb is that infobox images are as wide as the infobox. Check any article and you'll see that this is not typical and is actually extremely rare. {{Infobox television}} actually specifies that images "should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", not that they should be thumbnail sized. You can change the size but somebody is bound to change it back to a more conventional value. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Both policies you are quoting is out of date and doesn't reflect the current consensus. The size of the infobox is set by {{Infobox}} (22em) which does enjoy wide consensus. You got to remember not all users have large screens, which is why "thumb" and "frameless" is used as the size can be adjust in user's preferences. -- d'oh! [talk] 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the incredible number of infoboxes being used and the widths of images being used in them, the wider community consensus seems to be to force image sizes in infoboxes, rather than to force them to thumbnail sizes. This is different to a stand-alone lead image, or a images in the body of the text. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am done talking about this, if you believe you have wide consensus show it here: Template talk:Infobox television#Image size, in the meantime I have re-added "frameless". -- d'oh! [talk] 09:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You've got it arse-about with this edit. Until there is consensus to change from "Should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", to "use frameless" then you should comply with the infobox instructions. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

FIY, this is also being discussed at Template talk:Infobox television#Image sizeXeworlebi (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded appropriately. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting, see my new comments at Template talk:Infobox television#Image size. -- d'oh! [talk] 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The template instructions currently say "An image relevant to the show. Should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", and have done since 10 March 2007, when the template was first fully documented. "Frameless" is not mentioned anywhere in the instructions, nor does "frameless" appear anywhere in the archives of the talk page, so "frameless" is not the current consensus for the template. Viewing reversion of your changes can not be viewed as vandalism. I think you should read the policy on that. However, bulldozing your edits into the various articles as you have, against opposition by other editors in the absence of any consensus to use frameless, and only frameless, can certainly be seen as edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Wizards of waverly season 4 logo.png

I'm aware of that, but the criterion specifically requires that a free license be claimed. Note that the image is currently up for deletion because it has no license tag at all. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at older messages on my talk page, I saw your note about this image; you know, you could have tagged it for speedy deletion under G12. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I could have, but you wouldn't have deleted it because the criteria specifically says "Text pages". --AussieLegend (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I never before noticed that it specified text pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies if I seemed a little bit "snippy" in my last post. I'm having issues with another administrator who's doing exactly the opposite to you; while you're following the criteria to the letter, he's placing his own interpretation on policy and inconsistency is one of those things that really rings my bell. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There must be some mistake

You reverted my edit on List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck. I did not think I had to cite the etymology of a name. What source would you provide, for instance, that "Jack" is short for "John"? --Nate2357 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you're referring to this edit from more than two months ago. While it may be "interesting to note", it's trivial and constitues original research. That it's uncited is another issue. A google search revealed a number of sources linking "Kirby" to "the village with the church", which is most likely a reference to Kirby Muxloe, but not a single reference supporting what you added. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Message from Wolfdog406

Hi, can you please block this user from editing? Four times I had to revert this person's edit and I told them to stop on their talk page.

Thanks

Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't block anyone. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Call

Hello, just removed one of your merge templates on the basis that a good article like this doesnt need it- would argue that the new list articles should be deleted; reasonable editor created them but he has stepped outside his field this time. Promised myself that I would stay out of OZ place arguments for the time being! Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)).

Thanks for letting me know, but a merge template shouldn't be removed while the discussion is underway. If somebody has proposed a merge, you can't just arbitrarily decide that it doesn't need merging. In any case, the proposal is to possibly merge content into the article you deleted the template from, as is indicated in the discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warnings

Please do not leave unwarranted 3RR warnings on my talk page. They are not appreciated, and will be swiftly reverted. If you want to get my attention, make the effort of giving me a count of the three reverts. However whatever (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the fact that you violated 3RR two days ago at The Big Bang Theory and you're now edit-warring again over the same issue, the warning was more than warranted. Feel free to revert anything on your talk page as doing so is deemed to be confirmation that you have read and are aware of the warning. Accordingly, you will have no excuse if you persist in edit-warring and are blocked for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Look, it is not original research, the little section you persist on removing is on several websites, only the one i used was blocked. So i can hardly account that as OR. Stop removing useful information. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:59 07 November 2010 (UTC)

If it it doesn't have a citation it's OR. Instead of arguing about it, provide a citation, or leave it out of the article. Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Rusted AutoParts is acting in bad faith on his edits to the Sheldon Cooper article. He's been advised that the situation has turned into an edit war and to take the matter to the talk page. Please make sure your edits do not run afoul of the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've explained the policy on OR to him and said he can add the content if he can supply a citation from a RS but he's admitted the content is from a blocked site and so far hasn't provided the citation. All he's done is restored the content and deleted everything I've added to his talk page. I don't seem to be able to get through to him. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that he's removed—and effectively acknowledged—the warnings. I've just reminded him of 3RR myself, so if he reverts again, I'm prepared to block him for edit warring. Diffs of things like that are useful when discussing such situations on an administrators' noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually getting the diffs in order now so there's a clear and accurate picture. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Make sure to consider your own edit history before filing a report at WP:ANEW. Not every administrator may be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your last revert. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
True, but I only made three reverts and don't plan any more. (I didn't plan on 3). The first edit I made was a good faith copyedit of the content he added. While I realise that technically that can be seen as a revert, most admins see taht for what it is, a good faith copyedit and not edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point. (Which it may not hurt to mention in the report if you file an ANEW report.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

NCIS

Why is still incorect? Jimmy is credit "Also Starring" since season 6! -- 91.64.26.92 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There were discussions about this last season and it appeared he had only been credited this way in a few episodes. However, I've now reviewed all episodes and it appears that you were correct. He appeared in less than half of all the episodes in seasons 6 & 7 but is credited as "Also Starring" in all of those episodes, so I've revereted my changes. Sorry. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

Hi AussieLegend I would like to ask if you can explain a little better your revison of my edit on Miley Cyrus. I'm positive your correct I'm only asking to help me learn a little better thanks.TucsonDavid (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You added a {{fact}} tag in the middle of a quote that was already supported by two citations. Another citation for the same content is unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanationTucsonDavid (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Hanna Montana

Hi AussieLegend,

You edit Hanna Montana and your edit was series still siring, but aren't you wrong since it now called Hanna Montana Forever the other shows are no longer in production only reruns.TucsonDavid (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Hannah Montana Forever" is merely the marketing name of the fourth season of Hannah Montana. It's not a different series, as should be evident from the casting, plotlines and everything else. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television season

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edits at Template:Infobox television season regarding adding {{Italic title}} to the template. I've implemented this in the same way as at Template:Infobox television, see [8]. This way for the very few articles where an italic title is inappropriate, e.g. List of Highlander: The Raven episodes the additional optional parameter |italic_title=no can be added so that the title is not italicised. I will personally go through and add this to those to articles which use the infobox. Any problems let me know. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an incredibly inefficient way to resolve the problem that you have introduced into the template. Infobox television season is used in 1,156 articles. The fix should be to implement italics correctly, not to go around de-italicising hundreds of articles where your change doesn't work. By default the infobox should display the title in the least troublesome manner. In this case that's using standard formatting for the title, not italicising it. What happens in an article where somebody tries to correct the title? Do you know? I've raised this matter at Template talk:Infobox television#Template:Infobox television season as I'm sure there is a far better method of implementation. As for renaming season articles, please note that Template:Episode list#Sublists states that sublists should be at "List of X episodes (season y)" not "X (season y)". Moving articles to fix the problem is also not an efficient way of resolving the issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Template:Infobox_television_season.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Split Proposal

Would you like to comment? Talk:List_of_iCarly_episodes#Split --Confession0791 talk 23:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

TSLOD Episode

Why isn't there a summary for "My Oh Maya"? The airdate is this week. I think you need to start updating, and stop claiming that there arent 'reliable sources' - ElaineBenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.6.178 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The episode has not aired yet. All future episode information requires citations from reliable sources. Original research is not permitted. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see, so no one's allowed to put a summary till the airdate? Thats really unreasonable -ElaineBenes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.6.178 (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
People are allowed to put a summary, provided that the summary comes from a reliable source and doesn't copy it word for word. Finding the reliable source is the issue. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And what site would have reliable sources? - ElaineBenes

User:Waterflame96

As someone who seems to have warned this editor several times and had to clean up his copyvio issues related to the Ghost Whisperer episode articles, I thought you'd want to know he has been reported to ANI[9] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Season 5

I'm sorry I put the reference in the wrong place next time I'll put it in the RTitle. --MikeySalinas17 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Miranda Cosgrove

I don't know if you have rollback, but could you take a look at Miranda Cosgrove? Confession0791 (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Season/Series

Since I live in the U.S., I'm having some difficulty determining which term is most used in Australia. Mind setting me straight regarding which to use, or when to use which one, when dealing with Australian television shows? Huntster (t @ c) 03:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Series is traditional, but because of our exposure to American TV, season is becoming popular. If in doubt, use series. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The H2O article uses "series", but the Dance Academy article uses "season", so I wanted to do some kind of standardisation. The television series article didn't help at all, lol. Huntster (t @ c) 03:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FETCH petition

I saw you took out what an ip added about the the petitions. I did want to say they are really about 8 petitions out there. really my question. I was adding all the references but it would not let we do it for what ever reason. It worded on the 3 facebook and 2 youtube petitions and the one other site. It would let me on two, one being petition online witch is the main FETCh petition and another site I found at the last minute. it is giving me some kind of message when I save the page. So is there a way I can put it in or do to try to invlude them. . or is it going to be too manny rfences to out in the article since it is a little bit of the pargraph. I can't put the links for the two petitions here since it won't let me do it here as well but will for the rest. I do Have the links to the 2 petitions on the facebook page called where's fetch with ruff ruffmanf filming page. you can go there and find the two links if you need to. Saylaveer (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that has been raised at other articles. Essentially it's trivia, and the petition sites don't constitute reliable sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ChaosMaster16 - Most recent ANI discussion

FETCH contest images

I have been busy lately, so I was wondering would you reupload the FETCH season images.

Here are the links I want to upload for changing..

  1. http://www.pbs.org/parents/fetch/program/characters_s01.html
  2. http://www.pbs.org/parents/fetch/program/characters_s02.html
  3. http://www.pbs.org/parents/fetch/program/characters_s03.html
  4. http://www.pbs.org/parents/fetch/program/characters_s04.html

Here is the pages

  1. File:Fetchcast.jpg
  2. File:Fetchtv main.jpg
  3. File:Page3 img b.gif
  4. File:Local13a.jpg


I have allready uploaded the season 5 pic

This is only if you have time your self. if not I will get to it sometime.

If you don't get to get it looks like I am going to have to request deletion on this one #File:Page3 img b.gif and put a new one in. Or would it make scence to get rid of them all and rename them like I did for Season 5 here #File:Season 5 cast.jpg

Thanks Hope you can do it if you have time, if not I will do it sometime in the next Couple days. I tried today but it wouldn't work. I did get some advice on how to do it now but I won't have much time to do it now. Thanks PS Also in your recent edit to the FETCH page, I did put a reference to the awards it is with the last award. Here is the link if you did not catch it. http://www.pbs.org/parents/fetch/program/kudos.htmlSaylaveer (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're here

As usual my hat is off to you in regards to the talk page for L.J. Gibbs , but after reading the previous information about warring I have to also congratulate you on how level headed and logical you were in the resolution of the issue from Varlaam. Thanks for your hard work Matt Zero (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 still going at it

Sigh, you probably saw it, but he's still adding pifeedback ratings. With being blocked indefinitely he does so the only place he can, his user talk pageXeworlebi (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

up top

Hey, ya know that toolbar at the top of your pages and sub-pages that links to things like 'To Do' and 'Projects', plus your page, talk, and contribs? How can I get something like that on MY page, linking to My To Do, Projects, user page, talk and contribs? Please help me. The Klimpaloon I've done a lot to these mountains since 1883! Let's nang together! 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Ph1ne4s demands help

The toolbar is located at User:AussieLegend/Page Templates. Copy what's there to User:Ph1ne4s/Toolbar or something similar, remove what's irrelevant, change the links to point your pages and then add {{User:Ph1ne4s/Toolbar}} to the top of each page. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Montana: The Movie png

Please stop this. The colors are not manipulated and I'm sure that whatever was posted is just meaning that in the sense I can't turn a the Hannah Montana logo from gold and purple to orange and green. You're just looking for any random reason to get your way even though it has been discussed and the png version was chosen. The jpg version has manipulated colors. Have you even seen the actual poster? It looks more like the png version. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The colour in the image has been changed from the source image, which is what we're using here, not the original poster. There is no doubt that the colours have been manipulated, a simple side by side comparison shows it. You acknowledged the colour change when you asked, "since when is Miley orange?",[10] and your post now indicates that you manipulated the colour to match the original poster, rather that the image we're using. I was quite clear in my post at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests as to what the issues were,[11] I even gave examples of other versions of the poster, confirming the colour difference, so I don't doubt the administrator who responded was talking about colour. If you have an issue, ask him. The file has now been nominated for deletion so we'll leave it for consensus to decide the ultimate fate of the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the url so you can see it is not manipulated. What I said was pertaining to the JPG version because she doesn't look orange on the PNG version. You were pretty specific, but with something that was pretty much invented by you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing was invented by me. The colours are different between your png and the image that you said that you'd used as the source. If the source was wrong, that was your mistake, not mine. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reported

You have been reported to the administrators board. Please feel free to discuss it openly. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:32 07 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to discuss it on your talk page but you just deleted what I said and have persistently ignored policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

McGeek?

Wasn't it discussed that Elf Lord and Probie were the only names to be listed in the Info Box under Timothy McGee. Just hesitant to change it again and be in an edit war. Trista Triste Tierra (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it was discussed somewhere but can't remember. I don't see McGeek as a big issue, since it's seen fairly common usage, so I haven't reverted the addition. Other names are fedinitely an issue though. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, wanted your opinion on it. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Derren Brown

Hi, if this problematic user is objecting to the conversation staying on the article talk page, perhaps the friendly thing to do would be to either move it to the archive early or use {{cot}} to collapse the thread? Thanks, (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to teach the problematic user how to use Wikipedia properly. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you seen your latest revision? you state "Reference to name is clearly verifiable, simply by going to the url and typing in the surname "Burger". However, there is no proof this refers to a magician"
Well I clicked on the URL to do that, but I don't seem to be able to replicate what you say. I'd suggest undoing your latest 'undo' as you seem to of made quite a statement sayings its a valid source at the same time showing you haven't even checked the source is valid yourself. Slingb (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You know very well that it was working, otherwise you wouldn't have kicked up such a stink about the content being in the article. It appears that you may have a conflict of interest. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I know very well that it wasn't working at the time you made that comment. Seems your so focused on teaching the noobie how to use wikipedia that you lost site of what was actually important, the content. To the point where you go ahead and say something is valid without even checking it, even though I'd told you it had been removed on the page talk section about 20 mins beforehand. Slingb (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Just read the conflict of interest page, I emailed the site admins hours ago (as I had mentioned on the article talk page). I sent them the conversation we had so far, and the advice I was provided in the wiki chat channel regarding privacy policies etc. I left it up to them what they wished to do with it and haven't touched the main page since. So to me its not a conflict of interest as i'm not touching it any more, if they want to do something about it they can. I'm finished with it and will leave it to you. Slingb (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

I was not 100 percent sure on those edits but I thought I was correct. well i guess not thanks for your imput. Btw are you a admin?TucsonDavid (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Seasons episode lists

I have started a discussion about Mhiji's page moves of episode lists at WT:NC-TV. As someone who has already voiced their concerns over these actions, I though you should be informed. —Farix (t | c) 03:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for my early behavior. I actually had a direct link to the pages that had that snipet of info, but i can no longer find it. Please accept my apology.

Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:12 07 November 2010 (UTC)

FETCH

Hey I have been hearing rummors that FETCH will make a come FETCh facebook page. I will be watching the statuas of the auditions. But I was wondering if I could change the status of the show to hitaus. Also we we have to remove the cancelled section if the show returns or could we keep it but make it that it was going to be cancelled. Let me know what you think thanks. also changing the status to hitaus would be a good thing if it is back since we won't see an new season untill 2012. and change the cancel section to hitaus if we can keep it.99.19.14.106 (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rumours are just that and they have no credibility. Wikipedia requires that everything be verifiable and we have verification that the show is cancelled, so that should be what's in the article. If and when it is "un-cancelled", the status can be changed but, until then, cancelled has to remain. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tasmanian populations

Page is now at User:AussieLegend/Tasmania. I agree that the new version doesn't really solve the problems brought up at AFD; however, it's far from being an identical recreation, so it doesn't qualify for speedy as a repost. I didn't restore the talk page because it never consisted of anything more than {{WPAUS}}. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi i created the new revision, i never actually seen the original so i am unsure how different it actually is or what's needed to stop it being deleted again, any help would be appreciated. Stony ¿ 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's very similar, although strangely it includes the same errors that Purrum included in other "list of" articles that he created recently. This issues are listed at WP:AWNB#List of cities/places in <state> by population and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Tasmania by population and I've now nominated it for deletion again, as all of the issues still exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, the WA article is a dog's breakfast. Thanks to the ABS's rather inconsistent treatment of the Perth metro area, a fair number of its outer suburbs are UC/L's, while a "big" town here is anything over 500 or so people, meaning that even by extending the criteria downwards to 1000, we get a list stacked with random Perth suburbs and not even a complete list of towns. Orderinchaos 03:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I referenced your user page

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_entertainers --Confession0791 talk 18:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered, although I stole that from somewhere else, which is now archived at User:Adpete/olduserpage#Racial and Religious categories are A Bad Thing. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you read the Afd? The User after me didn't like it too much. --Confession0791 talk 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:GloucesterShire-geo-stub

Hi. I noticed you reverted my move from Template:GloucesterShire-geo-stub to Template:Gloucester-Shire-geo-stub. This was so that is not confused with Template:Gloucestershire-geo-stub. Otherwise it creates issues (see Wikipedia:Templates with names differing only in capitalization). Do you mind if I move it back? Mhiji (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your move simply turned {{GloucesterShire-geo-stub}} into a redirect to {{Gloucester-Shire-geo-stub}}. In practice it achieved nothing and was a pointless move because you still ended up at the same template. I think you're seeing issues where none exist. Your recent edits have been are causing more problems than they solve.[12][13][14][15][16] Perhaps you should consider what you're about to do before editing. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
How's that relevant? I reverted the edits... And don't start with the TV series articles, I was following the guidelines. Mhiji (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You may have reverted the edits, well some of them at least, but the point is they shouldn't have been made in the first place. While you think you were following the guidelines with the articles, you clearly got a number of editors upset and, as was proven, there was a much better way of implementing your changes, which is exactly what I had told you. You tend to edit without properly considering the consequences of your actions. As for this edit, you certainly didn't revert that. You should have checked some articles to make sure your changes weren't causing problems, but you didn't. This is exactly what happened with Template:Infobox television season. You need to check that your changes haven't had undesired effects, such as repeating urls, italicising entire titles instead of just that of the TV series name, or actually disambiguating a name instead of just assuming that what you've done is fine. We all make mistakes,[17] but you seem to be making the same ones over and over. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism towards Indians‎

Hi! The editor who created the article has been indeffed, so I'm hoping the prod holds. If not I'm happy to take it to AfD, but a prod would be neater. - Bilby (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Many thanks for fixing this! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries! :) --AussieLegend (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:List of N.I.M. Episodes

When you encounter or revert a user with a name like User:List of N.I.M. Episodes, please drop me a note. Usually they are sockpuppets of Mario96, a banned editor, and I will block them when I am informed of them.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Shall do and thanks for the heads up. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Australian Schools

This has been discussed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Template:Infobox_Australia_school_private. You're welcome to join the conversation. Not many people actually join in the discussion, really, so... Yeah. There are a number of Australian schools already using this template (among a couple of others), and there's no real difference between the two templates (besides that there's more fields available in {{Infobox school}}), so it's neater to have everything controlled from one point, would you not agree? -Danjel (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Separately, you've also reverted a couple of the other changes that I've made to a couple of pages. For example:
[18]
...and...
[19]
It would have been better for you to have checked in with me before reverting (I would have stopped, as I have now, if a question had been raised). -Danjel (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite simply, you shouldn't have started in the first place. Such wide ranging changes require consensus and there is none. I've raised the matter at WP:AWNB so other editors can become involved. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that this is a wide ranging change. There's no difference in content, and the current practice seems to be to use {{Infobox school}} anyway. There are 206 articles that use {{Infobox school}} and 163 that use {{Infobox Aust school}} (according to Moondyne's work User:Moondyne/Australia_schools_templates)
In the interim, I'd ask you to please refrain from undoing the work, just as I agree to stop the work (or you could attack the 206 others that use {{Infobox school}}? :). -Danjel (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I also don't see why you'd describe it as wide-ranging, but by all means explain your concerns and let's discuss. –Moondyne 12:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Please please please stop! -Danjel (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, you have. Apologies for panicking. -Danjel (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a wide ranging issue if it affects hundreds of articles as this does and it's entirely appropriate to revert back to the correct infobox until there is consensus to change. There was a discussion some time ago, after the proposal mentioned by Moondyne, when somebody else started changing the template and it was agreed then that we should continue using {{Infobox Aust school}}. It's not up to one or two editors to make the decision to change. As for the panic, I only changed a few articles and that was long before you posted. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've apologised for the panic. Seeing another revert after I added the above resulted in, yeah, panic. I should have checked the timestamps. I'm sorry, and that is why I struck through my comment.
Another perspective is that this is simply moving to the more common template, as {tl:Infobox school}} is. 206 articles (over 163 articles for the other side) plus 2 editors is a pretty good consensus.
In any case, let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Template:Infobox_Australia_school_private. -Danjel (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
206 wrongs don't make a right and 2 editors is not a consensus. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I'd love to respond to you over at [[20]], but I've had a long day and I've just read through 120 odd narratives written by 8-12 year olds. Could you please break up your post into some paragraphs so it's not a wall of text? Just to make it easier for people to read through and respond with respect to your points. Feel free to remove this edit either way. -Danjel (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Time Travel and the Big Bang Theory

My flux capacitor got a little dyslexic; I had the air date as 2010 (the typo I caught) and the access date as 2011 (thanks for the catch). KnownAlias contact 04:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that's what had happened. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (this is either very late notification, or you've already been informed and it got archived...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Newcastle High School

I think your interpretation of the translation of Newcastle HS's motto is best placed in the article proper (otherwise we'll have people interpreting the mottos for every bloody school, it'll get ridiculous). Can you make a section for it? ...and I'm sure I've raised it before, but ,'s in these numbers aren't really all that necessary. -Danjel (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation. I went to Newcastle Boys High which, along with Newcastle Girls High (now Newcastle High) and Newcastle Junior Boys High, all shared the school song, colours, logo and motto. This is the official interpretation. There's nothing to be gained from deleting it at this time. As for commas in numbers, MOS:NUM requires them for large numbers and Australian practice is to use them so we do so for consistency. Again, there's no point deleting them. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that for me. I knew it was around somewhere, but... MOS:NUM#Delimiting_.28grouping_of_digits.29:

Numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point (i.e. 10,000 or more) should be delimited into groups so they can be easily parsed, such as by using a comma (,) every three digits

(emph. mine)
As for the motto... WP:No_original_research? You're basing it off your own personal interpretation, because you haven't referenced anything. Furthermore, there is no other school with the meaning in the infobox. It is inconsistent. I suggested you make a new section for it. This is a good compromise, no? -Danjel (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for catching the single sex thing... Sorry, everything I was working on kinda melded into one. Heh. -Danjel (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not basing it off my own interpretation. It's actually listed in the yearbooks that are in the local public libraries. A section can be made for it, but I don't have time right now so it's best left in the infobox, where it's been for some time, until somebody has a chance to do so. Otherwise, it will be lost. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No. It's inconsistent with every other Australian school here. It won't be lost if you commit to making a section for it? :) -Danjel (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not inconsistent because Remis Velisque means both "With Oars and Sails" and "With all one's might". There are numerous references online.[21] --AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
What I mean by inconsistent is that no other Australian school (at least as far as I've seen) has that. If you'd like to suggest it for inclusion in Template:Infobox school, then maybe (but I'd oppose it on the grounds that it's more often than not interpretational - my school motto, vincit qui se vincit, has a completely different meaning depending on who you talk to *shrug*). -Danjel (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Has what? A translation of the motto? They certainly do. It's covered by "|motto_translation=" and doesn't need any more inclusion than there already is. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No other Australian school has an interpretation (ie, telling people what the English words mean), ie, it's inconsistent. Many have a translation (which is putting the Latin words into English).
Look. I'm contesting what you're including on that page. You shouldn't include it until we've come to a satisfactory conclusion. This is becoming WP:EDITWARRING. -Danjel (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"With all ones might is a translation and that's not inconsistent. Please don't tell me what I should and shouldn't do. I've been here long enough to know what is required. You're converting articles despite the fact that we still haven't come to a consensus yet so it's the pot calling the kettle black for you to tell me how to act. As for your removal of commas, citing MOS:NUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits) as a reason for removal is quite ridiculous. That section says, "Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may or may not be delimited (e.g. 1250 or 1,250)" so using commas is quite valid. As I've pointed out above, using commas is standard Australian practice, so we use commas which is supported by MOS:NUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits). Deleting commas for no reason is disruptive at best. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Without looking to get involved, the very first article I decided to check, Trinity College, Perth, does indeed have such a translation. So did the second (Aquinas College, Perth) and third (Perth Modern School) - worth highlighting the last of those is a state school. So "no other Australian school..." is not right. Orderinchaos 03:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please show me where in "Remis Velisque" you see the word "might" (you can look it up in any number of Latin-English dictionaries all over the net, try synonyms like strength and so on too if you like), for example? It isn't there. You're adding a layer of interpretation onto the saying. That's going beyond what every other school article on this site does. I'm Australian, I don't use commas in a 4 digit number. Am I unAustralian? You're referring to a practice which just isn't there. I'm calling for consistency, you're arguing against, fine. Let's put it to everyone else (as I did so at WP:EiA), like I repeatedly suggested you do. Until then, inconsistent information shouldn't be there. You're the only person still arguing against the consensus on template:Infobox school. We're moving on. -Danjel (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've taken this over to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AussieLegend_on_Newcastle_High_School, because I think some sort of administrator input is the only way that we can get a page without the controversial bits that you think should be added in while discussion continues. -Danjel (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked for 24 hours from editing for edit warring, as you did at Newcastle High School (Australia). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AussieLegend (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

As was indicated by another administrator, I acknowledged at ANI, in a discussion that I started after stepping back, that I had been sucked into a trivial edit war and sought opinions there on my actions. I have made over 38,000 edits to Wikipedia and have NEVER been blocked before. I believe I have demonstrated that I am a responsible editor and I do not think this block is justified in the circumstances. As C.Fred stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. "Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I don't think any action is necessary unless he commits any further violations of 3RR after that point."[3] This block seems punitive rather than preventative and has tarnished what I thought was an extremely good record. More importantly, I believe the project will suffer, albeit in a very small way, as I spend most of my time reverting vandalism, the addition of uncited original research, repairing misguided edits etc on articles that need constant watching by an adult. This block seems unconstructive at best. AussieLegend (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit-warring about an edit that was clearly not vandalism. Since you were the last editor to have reverted, any claims by you that you would have stopped edit-warring carry little weight, because the article was in your preferred state at the time you started the ANI thread. If you had really wanted to withdraw from the edit war, you should have reverted yourself first and left the article in the state preferred by the other editor. The benefit to the project of preventing and deterring you from continued edit warring outweighs the benefits of your other edits.  Sandstein  21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AussieLegend (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Given my previously unblemished record here, I would ask Sandstein to assume good faith as to what I would or would not have done. In fact I opened a discussion at WP:ANI#Would appreciate some feedback in which I acknowledged what had happened and asked for opinions as to whether or not what I had done was appropriate. Had I not been immediately sidetracked at length by the WP:AN3 discussion, I might have been able to revert, even though that would have compromised the integrity of the article. Sandstein should take special note of the acknowledgement that I made at the ANI discussion eight hours ago.[14] This is not something that I'm making up now. There is also certainly no evidence that edit-warring would have continued as neither Danjel or I edited the article at all for nearly 3 hours after the last edit. The claim that "the benefit to the project of preventing and deterring you from continued edit warring outweighs the benefits of your other edits" does not hold water. In the time since I was blocked I've identified at least 18 issues in other articles that needed fixing. I'd much rather be fixing those than arguing over commas. AussieLegend (talk) 4:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

Good-faith editor had acknowledged the mistake of getting involved in the edit war before being blocked, so with AGF toward both the blocked user and the blocking admin, I don't think this block is necessary to prevent damage to the project. As seen below, it is actually preventing improvements to the project. —DoRD (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
  • Agree that this was a bad block for the reasons above. I've left a comment on the admin's talk page asking for an explanation. Swarm X 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I must admit to being more than a little disappointed with his response, especially as I explained why I thought Danjel's comments were vandalism. What do you call it when somebody deliberately removes citations from an article without explanation, twice? I'm especially confused at "I wasn't actually aware of it when I closed the report on AN/3",[22] given that it was mentioned several times in the AN/3 report.[23][24][25][26][27] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, considering that you're a very long-term editor in good standing, I would have seriously expected Sandstein to assume that you made a good faith effort to stop edit warring on your part. I don't feel you've given any reason to assume bad faith (that you will go back to edit warring). And yes, it would appear that the blocking admin simply didn't read the AN3 discussion that was going on. Poor show on their part. Over four years time and 38,000 edits, and you get blocked for edit warring after the fact. Unbelievable. Swarm X 22:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked Deacon of Pndapetzim via email whether he had read the discussion and the relevant part of his response was "When I blocked you I only really looked at the evidence and skimmed the long discussion. After I blocked you I saw the AN/I thread," so it appears he skimmed the evidence as well, since the ANI discussion was mentioned in that. --22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The response since your block has been unfortunate. I want you to know that I appreciate your continuing to benefit the project during this block. MarnetteD | Talk 23:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I appreciate the support although you should probably rethink it since I'm such a bad, evil bastard who's going to bring down Wikipedia with his horrible edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hah. It is a privilege to welcome you to the club. Seriously though thanks for all you do and this block will soon be over and you can return to happy editing - the one or two times a day when that can occur :-) Cheers of the holiday season to you. MarnetteD | Talk 23:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's good thing our noble admin corps stepped in to puni- ...prevent you from disrupting the encyclopedia further. Just like you tried to do in the three hours between the edit war in your block. At least they've given you some time to cool down. </sarcasm> *sigh* Swarm X 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is an unjust block, User:Danjel was being disruptive with his view of his version or the highway (seeking a one sided consensus) however it was up to Danjel to gain a consensus. I see nothing wrong with AussieLegend edits which was restoring a cited source which was removed without any valid reason in the edit summary and fixing a figure which clearly should have a comma (there was no reason to remove it). Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice to see they rescinded the block..."for the record", if nothing else. Regards, Swarm X 10:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I haven't been on Wiki for a few days and come back to this - Aussie and I have had our share of random run-ins over the years but no matter how rabidly we've disagreed on the topic at hand, he has never acted in a blockworthy manner, and has always worked to benefit the project (not to mention the fact he does a lot of janitorial tasks that many users take for granted, as seen below). I'm glad this was ultimately attended to in a sensible (if delayed) manner. Orderinchaos 03:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Things that have happened since I was blocked.....

that need to be addressed

To the people watching this spot, thank you for your efforts in fixing the bad edits that I couldn't but I figure if administrators can't find the time to review my unblock request, then I'm not going to spend any time looking for bad edits, ever again. If people want to vandalise Wikipedia, let them, I'm not going to be part of the solution any more. I don't see why I should waste my time when there are those who can't even do what they should be doing, like reviewing unblock requests. It's not as if Category:Requests for unblock is really backlogged. As of now there are only 11 pages and some of them have been there for days. I wish you well in your efforts but, as my experience shows, you probably shouldn't even bother. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

that have been now been fixed by vigilant editors

 Reverted by dosbears
 Reverted--Terrillja talk 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 Reverted--Terrillja talk 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those Terrillja. At least somebody is watching. I guess the admins must all be busy. --17:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 Reverted Thanks for staying vigilant in spite of a questionable block. MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And thanks to MarnetteD for the kind comment, although I note that edit doesn't seem to have been reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well that was weird. I think I may have hit the show preview button and then used the backup feature on the menu to leave my message here. In any event it has been reverted now. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It's happened to me before plenty of times. I blame my keyboard. It should know its way round by now. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 Reverted All by MarnetteD - GoodExcellent work. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pixie dust.png and away go the bad edits. Always wanted to use this but hadn't had a chance until now. Thanks for the complement in your edit summary but I wouldn't want the aggravation. I'm logging off pretty soon but I will check here when I get back. Hopefully others will continue to help too. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for all you've done. It's probably a good idea that you're logging off. Soon the real fun begins. They come out in force to vandalise, add fancruft, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH and flat out WP:OR --AussieLegend (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 Reverted The IP hopper from Florida is a pain. The change to Whale Wars turns out to have been okay and I was laid into for some reason. Don't worry about it though as that is just the way that things go. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Could you review this edit? --Confession0791 talk 10:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mhiji mass moving "List of" pages again

Just letting you know that Mhiji is mass moving the seasonal list articles again naming WP:TV-NC in the edit summary. For now it appears just a limited amount (3rd Rock from the Sun, Hawaii Five-O, Two Guys and a Girl, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Knight Rider), which I believe were lists you didn't move back last time, but I assume more will follow. I have once again asked Mhiji to stop these disruptive mass moves without consensus. (You got blocked‽Xeworlebi (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. After reviewing the guideline that he's using to support these moves it's clear that he's misinterpreting the guideline and I've made appropriate comment on his talk page. If he doesn't stop and seek consensus for the moves as I've suggested, we should probably consider taking this to ANI, although that doesn't always achieve anything productive,[44] I hope that answers your question. ; --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Big Bang recurring gag

You're an expert here, would Sheldon dressing up as The Flash count? He did it on three seperate occasions. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:46 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Flash is certainly a recurring theme but dressing up in a costume isn't a recurring gag, especially the way it's been presented in the episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, AussieLegend. U sent me messages to stop doing illegal edits. Well, here's the story, I didn't mean for those edits to be illegal.

)

WikiSpector (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

New message

Why do you keep saying I've violated copyrights on Two and a Half Men (season 8)? CBS released the press-issue for the episode "Skunk, Dog, Crap and Ketchup," so why remove it when I fill it in? Please stop being so irritating. There has been no violation of copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktoemjoey (talkcontribs) 23:45, 21 December 2010 UTC

The content of press releases is still copyrighted. You can't simply copy and paste the contents to Wikipedia.[45][46] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8